Skip to content
The Pmg Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Pmg Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$150k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$585kHousing & Shelter$230kArts & Culture$220kCrime & Legal$50kHuman Services$50kInternational$50kReligion$50kFood & Nutrition$30kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$536k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY$100,000
PROJECT FREEWILL$50,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY20–22, $200k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 25% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%WHERE DO WE GO BERKELEY: $100k → 10%WE THE PEOPLE DETROIT: $50k → 21%WHERE DO WE GO BERKELEY: $50k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$905k · 3 repeat orgs$400k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
9

Total granted

$905k
$400k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+5%

Still filing today

100%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionArts & CultureInternationalCrime & LegalOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • ID
    Infact DBA Corporate Accountability
    5× · 2021–2025 · $535k · revenue -13%
  • PF
    PROJECT FREEWILL
    5× · 2021–2025 · $220k · 90% of their budget
  • WD
    Where Do We Go Berkeley
    2× · 2021–2022 · $150k · revenue +56% · 47% of their budget

Funded once

  • CT
    Consider The Homeless
    one grant, 2020 · $80k · revenue -31% · 45% of their budget
  • EB
    EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -16%
  • We the People of Detroitgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue +35%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Californians Against Waste Foundation

Research, develop and promote waste reduction policies and programs

Environment
2
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
3
Fair Work Center

We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…

Employment
4
California Center for Movement Legal Services

The California Center for Movement Legal Services (Movement Legal) provides legal services in the pursuit of improving the lives of California's traditionally underserved residents, carrying out legal work that fosters community led policy…

Crime & Legal
5
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
6
Alameda County Homeless Action Center

HAC assists homeless and mentally ill clients in the long and difficult process of becoming eligible for SSI and MediCal benefits. HAC provides assistance with other public benefits that clients need in the interim to survive until their…

Housing & Shelter
7
Boulder Watershed Collective

The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…

Environment
8
North Bay Jobs With Justice

Promote workers' rights and economic justice.

Civil Rights
9
Corporate Accountability Lab

The Organization unleashes the creative potential of the law to protect people and the planet from corporate abuse.

International
10
Legal Link

Legal Link removes legal barriers that prolong poverty by adding critically needed capacity to the legal ecosystem.

Crime & Legal
11
The Oakland Institute

The Oakland Institute, an independent policy think tank, works to support global struggles for Indigenous rights, human rights, and land rights and to promote public participation and fair debate on critical social, economic, and…

Food & Nutrition
12
Inner City Law Center

In 2024, Inner City Law Center, ICLC, served over 3,400 people, helping vulnerable Angelenos to remain in their homes and recover nearly $20.5 million in financial benefits.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is East Bay Community Law Center; the most unlike its peers is Project Freewill. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 12 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Infact DBA Corporate Accountability: $535,000 · EnvironmentInfact DBA Corporate AccountabilityCommunity Water Center: $50,000 · EnvironmentCommunity Water CenterPROJECT FREEWILL: $220,000 · Arts & CulturePROJECT FREEWILLWhere Do We Go Berkeley: $150,000 · Human ServicesWhere Do We Go Be…We the People of Detroit: $50,000 · Human ServicesWe the People of …Consider The Homeless: $80,000 · Food & NutritionConsider …EAST BAY FOOD JUSTICE PROJECT: $30,000 · Food & NutritionEAST BAY …ALL SOULS EPISCOPAL PARISH: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherEAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER: $50,000 · Crime & LegalGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $50,000 · InternationalRESOURCE GENERATION INC: $20,000 · Philanthropy
Environment$585,000Arts & Culture$220,000Human Services$200,000Food & Nutrition$110,000Other$70,000Crime & Legal$50,000International$50,000Philanthropy$20,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetInfact DBA Corporate Accountability: $535,000 over 5y, 1.9% of budgetPROJECT FREEWILL: $220,000 over 5y, 90% of budgetWhere Do We Go Berkeley: $150,000 over 2y, 47% of budgetConsider The Homeless: $80,000 over 1y, 45% of budgetEAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWe the People of Detroit: $50,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCommunity Water Center: $50,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetRESOURCE GENERATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA8.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Pmg Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Pmg Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Infact Dba Corporate Accountability: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Pmg Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Pmg Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 12 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Pmg’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home